Replacing O'Conner

Since this blog more often than not deals with political issues I feel obligated to offer my suggestion for who should be nominated to replace Sandra Day O'Conner on the Supreme Court. I mean isn't offering such unwanted uneducated advice one of the reasons to have a blog in the first place?

I will admit that I know nothing about this judge except for her ruling on one case, but based on her opinion in that one case, I've decided to put her name forward.

Loretta A. Preska of the U. S. District Court, Southern District of New York. Nominated to the court George H.W. Bush in 1992

The case I know about (hat tip to Greenie Watch) involves a suit filed by 8 states to cap output from coal fired power plants.

The plaintiffs - including Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin and New York - sought a court order requiring the nation's top five power producers to cut carbon dioxide emissions every year for at least a decade, by an amount to be determined later by the court.

Judge Preska dismissed the case.

U.S. District Judge Loretta A. Preska in Manhattan ruled that the case brought by state Attorney General Bill Lockyer and prosecutors for seven other states and New York City raised sweeping questions of public policy best resolved by Congress and the president, not the courts.

Just that alone makes her qualified in my book.

In her ruling, Preska said the plaintiffs sought “to impose by judicial fiat” limits on carbon dioxide emissions that Congress and President Bush explicitly refused to mandate.

“These actions present non-justiciable political questions that are consigned to the political branches, not the judiciary,” Preska concluded.

Lockyer said the opposite is true.

“When Congress has not taken action on a pressing environmental issue, states have the right to take legal action to protect themselves,” Lockyer said in a press release responding to the dismissal.

Which of course in translation means, when we are unable to enact our agenda in congress because we are the minority we will attempt to assert our will via the courts.

I did a little Google search on Judge Preska and most of what I saw I liked. Of course, I have no idea what I am talking about, so take it for what its worth.

I did find this interesting write up on Preska at the blog Underneath Their Robes:

And now, a brief aside on Judge Preska. One of A3G's favorite correspondents writes:

I am a huge fan of Judge Preska, before whom I have tried two cases to completion, one with a jury, one without. A finer judge would be hard to imagine. Judge Preska is highly intelligent, professional, courteous and correct, patient, fundamentally pleasant and good-humored, fair, judicious and open-minded, and yet appropriately firm. Although she seldom displays even asperity, let alone anger, she does not suffer fools gladly. Her outstanding temperament and considerable intellect combine to make her a model district judge. (Just today, as it happens, I took over a pending case originally assigned to Preska and cursed a mighty oath upon seeing that my predecessor had unwisely stipulated to have the case tried by the magistrate judge). She is also, as your correspondent noted, possessed of striking, patrician good looks, faultlessly elegant, beautifully dressed, accessorized and coiffed, and in general, a treat for all the senses. She would be a great interview subject for you.

Technorati Tags: Supreme Court

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 01:37 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment